CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by Repository@USM

Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology

Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

INVESTIGATION ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF OPC-WASTE

MATERIAL GEOCOMPOSITE
1 2 3
Chow Shiao Huey , Anas Ibrahim and Abdul Naser Abdul Ghani
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Penang Branch, Penang
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Penang Branch, Penang
3
Infrastructure Technology Research Unit, School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Penang

Corresponding author: shchow@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

Abstract

This study investigates the compressive strength of cement (OPC) bound waste material geocomposite.
Two different waste materials namely tire shred and rubber shred were investigated in this project.
Laboratory compression tests were conducted on the OPC-waste material geocomposite specimens
involving investigation on repeatability of specimen, effect of curing day and effect of OPC content. High
repeatability with less than 5% difference was observed either in terms of densities or compressive strength
of geocomposite. The compressive strength of the geocomposite was found to stabilise after 7 days curing.
The compressive strength of the geocomposite was also found to increase with increasing OPC content.

Keywords : cement bound waste material geocomposite, compressive strength, curing day, OPC content.

Introduction

Waste materials such as waste tire are generated at astronomical scale every year. This has
created environmental hazards associated with the storage of these waste materials. The use of
waste materials as construction materials in civil engineering applications is one of the better
ways of recycling waste material. Ahmed and Lovell (1993) cited some examples of waste
materials as lightweight embankment fill materials namely sawdust, fuel ash, shell, expanded
polystyrene and scrap tires. Among these waste materials, scrap tire is one of the most widely
researched as it was found that there are several advantages of using scrap tire in civil
engineering applications. Scrap tire is abundantly available, lightweight, non biodegradable and
thus more durable. Scrap tires can be managed as whole, slit, shred, chip, ground rubber, or
crumb rubber (Young et al., 2003). Some reported applications of scrap tire in civil engineering
include as lightweight fills for embankment and retaining structures (Yoon et al., 2006; Tandon et
al., 2007), drainage media in landfill (Reddy and Marella, 2001) and as aggregate replacement in
concrete and asphalt mixture (Ghaly and Cahill IV, 2005; Cao, 2007).

Previous studies focus mainly on use of tire alone or tire-soil mixtures in civil engineering. It was
reported that use of tire alone caused high settlement in addition to potential self-heating problem
due to exothermic reaction (Humphrey et al., 1998). On the other hand, tire-soil mixture was
found to have lower compressibility and higher shear strength thus perform better than only tire
(Yoon et al., 2006). However, both types of applications still depend greatly on on-site installation
and also subject to influence of vibration loading. Abdul Naser Abdul Ghani (2003) introduced
binder bound shredded scrap tire geocomposite in which cement and cement replacement
materials (styrene butadiene rubber latex, rice husk ash and aqueos foam) were used to bind the
shredded tire. Introduction of binder eliminates the need of onsite compaction in which pre-cast
geocomposite can be used. In addition, the properties of the binder bound geocomposite can be
pre-engineered by modifying the mix design to suit various engineering applications.

As most previous studies were found to focus on shred tire, lacking in information on other waste
materials has restricted their use in civil engineering. In addition, data on compressive strength
characteristic of waste material-OPC geocomposite is not widely accumulated in Malaysia due to
different sources and sizes of waste materials used. This study therefore investigates the
compressive characteristics of cement (OPC) bound waste material (in short OPC-waste material

107
Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology
Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

geocomposite). Two locally available waste materials namely tire shred and rubber shred were
investigated. Compression tests were conducted on different geocomposite combinations using
various curing days and cement contents.

Test Materials

The test materials consisted of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and two types of waste
materials. The Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) acts as binder to bind the waste materials
together. The two waste materials used in this study were tire shred and rubber shred as shown
in Figure 1. The tire shred was recycled from vehicles tire, irregular in shape and free of metal
wires. The rubber shred was recycled from diving flippers and consistent in shape. These waste
materials are available locally from commercial supplier. Table 1 shows the index properties of
the waste materials. All tests were conducted in accordance to BS1377:1990. It is observed that
although the tire shred is bigger in size, but it is lighter as compared to the rubber shred. The
particle size distribution curves of the waste materials are as shown in Figure 2. The coefficient of
uniformity, Cu and coefficient of gradation, Cg were found to be 2.27 and 1.43 respectively for tire
shred. As for rubber shred, the coefficient of uniformity, Cu and coefficient of gradation, Cg were
found to be 1.66 and 1.16 respectively. Both waste materials can be considered as uniformly
graded as their coefficient of uniformity are less than 3.

Table 1: Index properties of waste materials

Properties Tire shred Rubber shred
Specific gravity 0.926 0.974
3
Minimum density (g/cm ) 0.366 0.423
Effective size, D10 (mm) 6.000 3.500

(a) (b)

Figure 1: (a) tire shred; (b) rubber shred

100
90
80
70
% Passing

60
50
40
30
20 rubber shred
10 tire shred
0
1 10 100

Particle size (mm)

Figure 2: Particle size distribution curves for the two waste materials

108
Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology
Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

Test Programme and Procedure

Table 2 shows the test program and summary of test results of the laboratory compression tests.
Several variables were taken into account namely:
a) Two types of waste materials (tire shred and rubber shred)
b) Five different curing days (3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days)
c) Five different OPC contents (0.6:1, 0.8:1, 1:1, 1.2:1 and 1.4:1 OPC : waste material
ratios)

Laboratory compression tests using compressive machine were conducted on cube specimens
sized 100 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm in this study. All specimens were cast using water-cement
ratio of 0.5 and cured at room temperature for 7 days unless otherwise stated. A standardised
specimen preparation procedure was adopted in this study to ensure the consistency of
specimens. The waste material was first dried at room temperature. Then the waste material,
OPC and water were weighed to the prefixed ratio and placed into the cleaned mixer and mixed
for 10 minutes. The geocomposite was then placed in the mould in 3 layers. Each layer was
compacted by using vibrating table for 30 seconds. The mould with the geocomposite inside was
then cured at room temperature according to the curing duration. Figures 3 and 4 show the cube
specimens for both types of geocomposites. For ease of referencing, the OPC bound tire shred
geocomposite was named Geocomposite A and the OPC bound rubber shred geocomposite was
named Geocomposite B in short in all subsequent passages.

Figure 3: Cube specimen of OPC bound tire shred geocomposite (Geocomposite A)

Figure 4: Cube specimen of OPC bound rubber shred geocomposite (Geocomposite B)

109
Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology
Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

Table 2: Test program and summary of results for compression tests

Density Compressive
No Series Test Mix Design 3
(kg/m ) Stress (kPa)
1 Control specimen 1070 850
1.1 1:1 OPC/Tire shred
and repeatability
test 1.2 1:1 OPC/Tire shred 1100 890

1.3 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred 1190 980

1.4 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred 1180 1000

2 Investigation on 1060 240
2.1 1:1 OPC/Tire shred at 3-day curing
effect of curing day
1085 870
2.2 1:1 OPC/Tire shred at 7-day curing
1070 900
2.3 1:1 OPC/Tire shred at 14-day curing
1070 820
2.4 1:1 OPC/Tire shred at 21-day curing
1070 800
2.5 1:1 OPC/Tire shred at 28-day curing
1120 840
2.6 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred at 3-day curing
1185 990
2.7 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred at 7-day curing
1120 940
2.8 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred at 14-day curing
1130 1120
2.9 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred at 21-day curing
1180 1180
2.10 1:1 OPC/Rubber shred at 28-day curing
3 Investigation on 820 110
3.1 0.6:1 OPC/Tire shred
effect of cement
content 3.2 0.8:1 OPC/Tire shred 930 320

3.3 1.0:1 OPC/Tire shred 1085 870

3.4 1.2:1 OPC/Tire shred 1180 940

3.5 1.4:1 OPC/Tire shred 1200 960

890 170
3.6 0.6:1 OPC/Rubber shred
1040 800
3.7 0.8:1 OPC/Rubber shred
3.8 1.0:1 OPC/Rubber shred 1185 990
1280 1670
3.9 1.2:1 OPC/Rubber shred
1340 2200
3.10 1.4:1 OPC/Rubber shred
Notes:
OPC/Tire shred denotes Geocomposite A
OPC/Rubber shred denotes Geocomposite B

Repeatability and Consistency of Specimen

Checking on specimen consistency was conducted by comparing the densities and compressive
stresses for two identical specimens at same testing condition and parameter (refer Test Series 1
in Table 2). For Geocomposite A, it is observed that the densities of the two identical samples are
3 3
1070 kg/m and 1100 kg/m respectively indicating high consistency with only 2.8% difference.
The compressive stresses were found to be 850 kPa and 890 kPa respectively, also indicating
high consistency with 4.7% difference. For comparison purpose, average density and
3
compressive stress of 1085 kg/m and 870 kPa are adopted for all subsequent test series.

As for Geocomposite B, it is observed that the densities of the two identical samples are 1190
3 3
kg/m and 1180 kg/m respectively indicating high consistency with only 0.8% difference. The
compressive stresses were found to be 980 kPa and 1000 kPa respectively, also indicating high
consistency with only 2.0% difference. For comparison purpose, average density and
3
compressive stress of 1185 kg/m and 990 kPa are adopted for all subsequent test series.

110
Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology
Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

In general, Geocomposite B was found with higher density and higher compressive stress as
compared to Geocomposite A. Overall the difference between the densities and compressive
stresses of identical specimens is less than 5%. This indicates that the standard specimen
preparation and casting procedure is effective in controlling the repeatability and consistency of
specimen.

Effect of Curing Day on Compressive Strength of Geocomposite

The compressive strength of Geocomposites A and B with 1:1 OPC : waste material ratio was
investigated at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 curing days. Figure 5 shows the variation of compressive
strength for both Geocomposites A and B at the different curing days. For Geocomposite A, an
increasing trend of compressive stress in the range of 840 to 1180 kPa with increasing curing day
is observed. However, Geocomposite B displayed a down trend upon curing day of 14-day. The
range of compressive stress for Geocomposite B varies from 240 to 800 kPa.

In general, the compressive strength of both geocomposites stabilised at curing day of 7-day.
Similar finding was also reported by Abdul Naser Abdul Ghani (2003). Ghaly and Cahill IV (2005)
also reported an increasing trend in compressive stress with increasing curing day for rubberised
concrete.

1400
1180
Compressive stress (kPa)

1200 1120
990
940
1000 840

800 870 900

820 800
600

400
Geocomposite A
200 240
Geocomposite B
0
0 7 14 21 28 35

Curing day

Figure 5 : Variation of compressive stress for Geocomposites A and B at different curing days

Effect of Cement Content on Compressive Strength of Geocomposite

Investigation on effect of cement content on the compressive strength of geocomposite was

conducted by using five different OPC-waste material ratios namely 0.6:1, 0.8:1, 1:1, 1.2:1 and
1.4:1. Table 3 and Figure 6 present the test result for Geocomposite A. It is observed that the
density of Geocomposite A increases with increasing OPC content. It is also noted that its
compressive strength increased with increasing cement content. The most significant increase in
compressive strength of 10.3% (as compared to control specimen) is observed when 1.4 : 1.0
OPC/rubber shred ratio is used. On the other hand, the most severe drop of 87.4 % in
compressive strength (as compared to control specimen) is observed when 0.6 : 1.0 OPC-tire
shred ratio is used. Table 4 and Figure 7 present the test result for Geocomposite B. Similar to
Geocomposite A, its density and compressive strength increased with increasing OPC content.
The most significant increase in compressive strength of 122.2% (as compared to control
specimen) is observed when 1.4 : 1.0 OPC/rubber shred ratio is used. On the other hand, the
most severe drop of 82.8 % in compressive strength (as compared to control specimen) is
observed when 0.6 : 1.0 OPC-tire shred ratio is used.

111
Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology
Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

In general, a higher amount of OPC increased the compressive stress of both geocomposites.
This is because OPC helps to strengthen the bonding between the waste materials thus higher
compressive strength. Similar findings was also reported by Abdul Naser Abdul Ghani (2003) and
Ghaly and Cahill IV (2005). It is also noted that the gain in compressive strength for
Geocomposite B (122.2%) is more significant as compared to Geocomposite A (10.3%) when
40% of OPC is added to the waste material.

Table 3 : Compressive strength of Geocomposite A at various OPC content

OPC : Waste Density Compressive % Increase As Compared
3
Material Ratio (kg/m ) Stress (kPa) to Control Specimen
0.6 : 1.0 820 110 -87.4
0.8 : 1.0 930 320 -63.2
1.0 : 1.0 (control) 1085 870 0.00
1.2 : 1.0 1180 940 8.1
1.4 : 1.0 1200 960 10.3

Table 4 : Compressive strength of Geocomposite B at various OPC content

OPC : Waste Density Compressive % Increase As Compared
3
Material Ratio (kg/m ) Stress (kPa) to Control Specimen
0.6 : 1.0 890 170 -82.8
0.8 : 1.0 1040 800 -19.2
1.0 : 1.0 (control) 1190 990 0.0
1.2 : 1.0 1280 1670 68.7
1.4 : 1.0 1340 2200 122.2

1200
Compressive stress (kPa)

940 960
1000
870

800

600

400 320

200 110

0
0.6 : 1.0 0.8 : 1.0 1.0 : 1.0 1.2 : 1.0 1.4 : 1.0
OPC-Tire shred ratio

Figure 6 : An increasing compressive strength in Geocomposite A with increasing OPC content

2500
2200
Compressive stress (kPa)

2000
1670

1500

990
1000 800

500
170

0
0.6 : 1.0 0.8 : 1.0 1.0 : 1.0 1.2 : 1.0 1.4 : 1.0

OPC-Rubber shred ratio

Figure 7 : An increasing compressive strength in Geocomposite B with increasing OPC content

112
Proceedings of Malaysian Infrastructure Technology Conference 2007. Infrastructure Technology
Research Unit. USM. ISBN 978-983-3986-19-4

Conclusions

This study investigates the compressive strength of cement (OPC) bound waste material
geocomposite. Two different waste materials namely tire shred and rubber shred were
investigated in this project. Laboratory compression tests were conducted on 100 mm x 100 mm
x 10 mm OPC-waste material geocomposite cube specimens. A total of three compression test
series were conducted involving investigation on repeatability of specimen, effect of curing day
and effect of OPC content. High repeatability was observed with less than 5.0% difference in
density and compressive strength of identical specimens. Investigation on effect of curing day
involved specimens cured at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. The compressive strength of both
geocomposite A and B was found to stabilise after 7 days curing. For investigation on effect of
OPC content, five different OPC-waste material ratios were studied namely 0.6:1, 0.8:1, 1:1,
1.2:1 and 1.4:1. It is noticed that increasing OPC content would increase the compressive stress
for both Geocomposites A and B. The stress increase is probably caused by a stronger bonding
between the waste materials with increasing OPC content. It is also observed that there is a
unique relationship between compressive strength and density of geocomposite. An increase in
the densities of the geocomposite was found to increase the compressive strength of the
geocomposite.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (Fundamental Research Grant
Scheme) for providing funding for this study. The authors would also like to thank Rubplast Sdn.
Bhd., Malaysia for providing some of the waste materials.

References

Abdul Naser Abdul Ghani (2003). Studies of Lightweight Geocomposite as Compressible Load
Reduction Layer on Earth Retaining Structures. PhD Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Ahmed, I. and Lovell, C. W. (1993). Rubber Soils as Lightweight Geomaterials. Transportation
Research Record 1422. 61-70.
Cao, W. D. (2007). Study on Properties of Recycled Tire Rubber Modified Asphalt Mixtures Using
Dry Process. Construction and Building Materials. 21(5): 1011-1015.
Ghaly, A. M. and Cahill IV, J. D. (2005). Correlation of Strength, Rubber Content, and Water to
Cement Ratio in Rubberized Concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 32(6): 1075-
1081.
Humphrey, D. N., Whetten, N., Weaver, J., Recker, K. and Cosgrove, T. A. (1998). Tire Shreds
as Lightweight Fill for Embankments and Retaining Walls. Proceedings of Geo-congress,
ASCE Geotech. Special Publication no 79. 51-65.
Reddy, K. R. and Marella, A. (2001). Properties of Different Size Tire Shreds: Implications on
th
Using as Drainage Material in Landfill Cover Systems. Proceedings of the 17 International
Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, PA, USA. 1-19.
Tandon, V., Velazco, D. A., Nazarian, S. and Picornell, M. (2007). Performance Monitoring of
Embankments Containing Tire Chips: Case Study. J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 21(3): 207-214.
Yoon, S., Prezzi, M., Siddiki, N. Z., and Kim, B. (2006). Construction of a Test Embankment
Using a Sand-Tire Shred Mixture as Fill Material. Waste Management. 26(9): 1033-1044.
Young, H. M., Sellasie, K. Zeroka, D. and Sabnis, G. (2003). Physical and Chemical Properties of
Recycled Tire Shreds for Use in Construction. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering.
129(10): 921-929.

113